In Neblett v. MacFarland, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid. The contract in question was between Neblett and MacFarland, and it stated that Neblett would pay MacFarland a certain amount of money in exchange for MacFarland's promise to convey certain real estate to Neblett. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to its terms. The Court also noted that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that Neblett had given something of value in exchange for MacFarland's promise to convey the real estate. The Court also held that the contract was not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party. The Court noted that both parties were competent adults, and that there was no evidence that either party was under any duress or undue influence when they entered into the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Neblett and MacFarland was valid and enforceable. The Court noted that the contract was clear and unambiguous, supported by consideration, and not voidable due to any lack of capacity on the part of either party.

In Neblett v. MacFarland, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been partially performed could be enforced if it violated state law. The majority of justices held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus dismissed the case. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that when one party has already substantially fulfilled their obligations under a contract, they should not be denied compensation for their efforts simply because the agreement may have violated state law at some point in time. He argued further that allowing states to invalidate contracts after performance would create an uncertain legal environment which would discourage people from entering into agreements with each other and ultimately harm commerce within the United States.